Hands-On With Apple's $4999 Pro Display XDR and $999 Stand

[Digital Skunk]

"6K" is as worthless a standard as "5K" was. Seems a bit of a meme to me personally. It would've been cool for them to go with a higher pixel density 4K display or go 8K since I guess that resolution is gonna be a thing sooner than later.

It's not useless, per se, but it has it's uses. in terms of monitors it's necessary if you want to watch 4k at 100%. A 4k monitor wouldn't be able to show anything else, and a 5k monitor wouldn't show much else. An 8k would be great but you'd have to have a killer machine to drive that many pixels.

The 4k and 8k specs for acquiring and delivering content are locked by aspect ration and standards committees. The 4.5k, 5k, 6k specs aren't for distribution, but are perfect for acquiring and downsampling or for viewing, especially if the content is less than the resolution of the monitor.

actually

Barco Coronis Uniti 33.6" 12MP Dual-Head IPS Medical Display - K9602762 - Computer Monitors - CDW.com

Buy a Barco Coronis Uniti 33.6" 12MP Dual-Head IPS Medical Display at CDW.com

www.cdw.com

Holy crap! And here I was thinking 30"+ 4k reference monitors were expensive. 12K ... that's insane.

And it goes to show us all that some of these specs are still middle of the road.

For some clients of mine I'd still recommend getting a true reference monitor. Sony's OLED Trimaster still has my heart skipping beats. (I haven't seen the XDR yet so that may change)

p.s. As for the mini-tower / Mac Pro lite: we all hear you ladies and gents. We've been down this rabbit hole for the better part of 15 years. People were saying the same things about the PowerMac G5 when it debuted at $1999.

In the end, most users don't upgrade their systems after they purchase it. At best it'll be RAM and the hard drive. Cut the Mac Pro (arbitrarily with no thought at all) in half and you're looking at $3500. Remove the Xeon chips and maybe you can shave off another ????? $750-$1000?

This isn't my thing, I admit, I buy what's on the table or walk away.

You're still looking at $2500 for an under powered, not so configurable Mac Tower.

 

[farmboy]

True Tone should be an optional choice, not the default mode imo. Whether or not other modes are available is beside the point. That point being the irony of hyping the professional accuracy of the monitor while presenting the first impression with an intentionally inaccurate mode.

Wow. That was a genuine "Get off my lawn" moment right there.

And I'm sure the Stand does not always hold the monitor at the precisely perfect height right out of the box, either. Poor, poor professionals, having to make a choice in the settings and all. What was Apple thinking, that people play with the settings all the time or something?

 

[WozniakDestroyTimCook]

I guess it's a nice monitor and all, but it's just cringe to me because crap like "6K" is as worthless a standard as "5K" was. Seems a bit of a meme to me personally. It would've been cool for them to go with a higher pixel density 4K display or go 8K since I guess that resolution is gonna be a thing sooner than later.

Most of the people who look forward to buy a new reasonable price of $1000 thunderbolt display if it gets an update. However, instead of that Apple made a slightly bigger+ More thicker display with higher HDR that very few contents are going hit 1600nits in order to charge you an exorbitant price of $6000 to piss you off.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Most of the people look forward to buy a new reasonable price of $1000 thunderbolt display if it gets an update. However, instead of that Apple made a slightly bigger+ More thicker display with higher HDR that very few contents are going hit 1600nits in order to charge you an exorbitant price of $6000 to piss you off.

Apple’s Thunderbolt Display was discontinued in 2016 due to very low demand. But they do still sell a 23.7” 4K for $700 and a 27” for $1,300. Both are Thunderbolt 3/USB-C so they can be used with Macs as well as iPad Pro.

re: the 32”, what an incredible display! The excellent 1,600 nits as you mention is a great selling point. This thing has turned out to be a huge hit for Apple; good luck trying to get one because they’re already back-ordered until the middle of February!

Perhaps if Apple had priced it closer to $10,000 they could keep them in stock, but at only $6,000 (including the stand), they flew off the shelves.

I suppose Apple might make a 42” 8K monitor at some point in the future, possibly around $15,000 or so, but maybe 42” is just too large. Demand for something that big would be rather limited it seems.

 

[WozniakDestroyTimCook]

Apple’s Thunderbolt Display was discontinued in 2016 due to very low demand. But they do still sell a 23.7” 4K for $700 and a 27” for $1,300. Both are Thunderbolt 3/USB-C so they can be used with Macs as well as iPad Pro.

re: the 32”, what an incredible display! The excellent 1,600 nits as you mention is a great selling point. This thing has turned out to be a huge hit for Apple; good luck trying to get one because they’re already back-ordered until the middle of February!

Perhaps if Apple had priced it closer to $10,000 they could keep them in stock, but at only $6,000 (including the stand), they flew off the shelves.

I suppose Apple might make a 42” 8K monitor at some point in the future, possibly around $15,000 or so, but maybe 42” is just too large. Demand for something that big would be rather limited it seems.

Apple has been selling the own branded display for over 2 decades and what makes you think that suddenly a few quarters of weaker demand and sales is a good idea to concede the market for other company. The fact is sales will be far better If Apple updates the thunderbolt display to 5K in conjunction with the launch of cylindrical mac pro.

So you prefer Apple to recommend a cheap plastic product rather than continue selling a new iteration of thunderbolt display that are more inline with Apple Products. I think you will encourage or endorse to the people if Apple discontinues the Mac Pro in the future and partner with LG to produce an inferior version as a substitute.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Apple has been selling the own branded display for over 2 decades and what makes you think that suddenly a few quarters of weaker demand and sales is a good idea to concede the market for other company. The fact is sales will be far better If Apple updates the thunderbolt display to 5K in conjunction with the launch of cylindrical mac pro.

Commodity monitors is not a product Apple is interested in selling. They are also not interested in selling $50 phones, $300 PC laptops or $100 WiFi routers 🤷‍♂️

If Apple doesn’t see a future in a particular product line, they may very well discontinue it. What makes you think you know more than Apple which products they should make? Maybe they’ll re-enter the market sometime in the future but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple has been selling the own branded display for over 2 decades and what makes you think that suddenly a few quarters of weaker demand and sales is a good idea to concede the market for other company. The fact is sales will be far better If Apple updates the thunderbolt display to 5K in conjunction with the launch of cylindrical mac pro.

So you prefer Apple to recommend a cheap plastic product rather than continue selling a new iteration of thunderbolt display that are more inline with Apple Products. I think you will encourage or endorse to the people if Apple discontinues the Mac Pro in the future and partner with LG to produce an inferior version as a substitute.

The issue isn't so much as to whether sales of an updated product will be better (it likely will be compared to had said product not been updated), but whether it is worth the opportunity cost of doing so.

It's also not a matter of what you or me or anyone here would prefer. Of cause we are all going to want Apple to do something that is in our own personal interests, but ultimately, Apple is just one company, with finite resources at its disposal. It can't, and won't, do everything. Everything has to serve the bigger picture in some way.

What is likely happening is that Apple feels that there is no longer a need to continue offering their own branded version of a Thunderbolt Display or router. Routers have gotten good enough, while the Thunderbolt Display does not use proprietary technology such as MagSafe. Instead, Apple is comfortable allowing third party vendors to fill this gap while they focus their energies on other products they feel is more deserving of their attention, such as wearables.

It may not even be about the money. Macs simply do not represent the future at Apple, and there is only so much that can be done to make them more personal for the end user as compared to mobile and wearables. As such, it is understandable that Apple's design team simply may not be as enthusiastic about working on Macs compared to other products.

You can argue that it wouldn't take much time to release a 5k display in an iMac form factor without the guts and call it a day, but it would still be a distraction for a company that is developing their own AR glasses and self-driving vehicles. Ultimately, that's Apple's mantra - a thousand "no" for every "yes", and if Apple just so happens to say "no" to something that you happen to care about, that's just too bad.

Such is the price of embracing the Apple ecosystem.

 

[WozniakDestroyTimCook]

Commodity monitors is not a product Apple is interested in selling. They are also not interested in selling $50 phones, $300 PC laptops or $100 WiFi routers 🤷‍♂️

If Apple doesn’t see a future in a particular product line, they may very well discontinue it. What makes you think you know more than Apple which products they should make? Maybe they’ll re-enter the market sometime in the future but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

They are not interested in selling? Apple sell it for over numerous decade to deliver a better mac ecosystem more than worrying about if it generate huge sales because that isn't the main objective.

 

[PickUrPoison]

They are not interested in selling? Apple sell it for over numerous decade to deliver a better mac ecosystem more than worrying about if it generate huge sales because that isn't the main objective.

Correct, not interested in selling commodity (cheap) monitors. Apple doesn’t do cheap.

And if people don’t want to buy a high-spec, relatively expensive product, Apple can’t force them to, can they?

They solved this problem with the 32” by moving upmarket: providing a very high-spec product at a rather expensive price—a price customers are willing to pay. But it’s aimed at a pretty niche market.

If Apple thought people would want/buy it, they could introduce a similar 27” display at maybe $3-4k (with stand) but they apparently don’t think there’s sufficient demand. I think they’re right, what do you think?

 

[WozniakDestroyTimCook]

Correct, not interested in selling commodity (cheap) monitors. Apple doesn’t do cheap.

And if people don’t want to buy a high-spec, relatively expensive product, Apple can’t force them to, can they?

They solved this problem with the 32” by moving upmarket: providing a very high-spec product at a rather expensive price—a price customers are willing to pay. But it’s aimed at a pretty niche market.

If Apple thought people would want/buy it, they could introduce a similar 27” display at maybe $3-4k (with stand) but they apparently don’t think there’s sufficient demand. I think they’re right, what do you think?

People don't want a high spec product? Do you even know what you are trying to interpret? Apple gets that people will buy the branded output display device regardless if it is 27-inch or 32-inch so what are you even trying to reason with it. The thunderbolt display is not a cheap commodity and will be selling at a higher volume if it gets an update back when it launches cylindrical mac pro.

 

[PickUrPoison]

People don't want a high spec product? Do you even know what you are trying to interpret? Apple gets that people will buy the branded output display device regardless if it is 27-inch or 32-inch so what are you even trying to reason with it. The thunderbolt display is not a cheap commodity and will be selling at a higher volume if it gets an update back when it launches cylindrical mac pro.

Just you saying that the 27” Thunderbolt Display would have sold better if Apple had updated it six years ago doesn’t make it true. What makes you think you know Apple’s customers better than they?

Apple sells a 32” XDR, a very high spec monitor that is rather expensive at $6,000. That’s the product they thought they could sell, so they made it and put it up for sale. It is so much in demand that if you order it today, it won’t ship until mid-February.m, so I guess they were right.

If Apple offered a 27” XDR for $4,000, would you be happy about that and buy it? Apparently Apple doesn’t think so, because that product isn’t offered for sale.

You can wish for a $1,000 27” 5K monitor, just as you can wish for a iPhone SE. But just wanting it isn’t enough. You’re not entitled to the product you want for the price you want to pay. That’s not the way it works.

 

[PickUrPoison]

True Tone should be an optional choice, not the default mode imo. Whether or not other modes are available is beside the point. That point being the irony of hyping the professional accuracy of the monitor while presenting the first impression with an intentionally inaccurate mode.

TrueTone is an optional choice. But Apple thinks automatically adjusting the white balance based on ambient lighting results in a better out of the box picture, not worse. You might disagree.

In the absence of the user selecting a desired reference mode, a TrueTone-adjusted display is the best color representation Apple can deliver. I assume that’s why Apple chooses that for the default.

If you wish to lobby Apple to change the default behavior, complaining here on the MR forums is unlikely to achieve that goal. You might want to use the feedback page, or you could write to Tim Cook and/or Phil Schiller.

 

[WozniakDestroyTimCook]

Just you saying that the 27” Thunderbolt Display would have sold better if Apple had updated it six years ago doesn’t make it true. What makes you think you know Apple’s customers better than they?

Apple sells a 32” XDR, a very high spec monitor that is rather expensive at $6,000. That’s the product they thought they could sell, so they made it and put it up for sale. It is so much in demand that if you order it today, it won’t ship until mid-February.m, so I guess they were right.

If Apple offered a 27” XDR for $4,000, would you be happy about that and buy it? Apparently Apple doesn’t think so, because that product isn’t offered for sale.

You can wish for a $1,000 27” 5K monitor, just as you can wish for a iPhone SE. But just wanting it isn’t enough. You’re not entitled to the product you want for the price you want to pay. That’s not the way it works.

Don't come up with other product that isn't related. The category, size and price point you are referring isn't even the same. I wouldn't be surprised if you never heard of artificial demand and buy an apple product even if it cost more than you worth.

The volume of demand for a smaller size or without 1600nits like 27-inch won't be far off to the 32-inch model if it gets updated so it is completely wrong that you inferred people are not going to buy the product.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Don't come up with other product that isn't related. The category, size and price point you are referring isn't even the same. I wouldn't be surprised if you never heard of artificial demand and buy an apple product even if it cost more than you worth.

The volume of demand for a smaller size or without 1600nits like 27-inch won't be far off to the 32-inch model if it gets updated so it is completely wrong that you inferred people are not going to buy the product.

You say demand for a 27” won’t be far off the 32”. You might be right. How about you personally? I know you don’t want to pay $6,000 for a 32” XDR, though others are.

Are you willing to pay $4,000 for a 27” XDR?

 

[theluggage]

Apple’s Thunderbolt Display was discontinued in 2016 due to very low demand.

Maybe the very low demand was something to do with the fact that it was launched in 2011 when 1440p displays were rare and Thunderbolt was the new shiny, but 5 years later when 4K was taking off, and iMacs had moved to 5k, Apple hadn’t updated it and were still asking the same price...?

That, and never adding Thunderbolt to the classic Mac Pro - or (duh) adding a DisplayPort or HDMI input to the TB display - so MP users had to buy the n9n-TB version. Or perhaps the glossy-only display (it was never even updated with the new anti-glare coating from the iMac redesign). Or could it be the worse-than-a-$500 Dell non-adjustable stand (so you had to stand it on a book to use it as a second iMac display)?

 

[WozniakDestroyTimCook]

You say demand for a 27” won’t be far off the 32”. You might be right. How about you personally? I know you don’t want to pay $6,000 for a 32” XDR, though others are.

Are you willing to pay $4,000 for a 27” XDR?

Most people have no problem paying more than that but the question is whether the new feature like XDR worth 6 times the asking price and most or some people might only need HDR10+ instead of XDR.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Maybe the very low demand was something to do with the fact that it was launched in 2011 when 1440p displays were rare and Thunderbolt was the new shiny, but 5 years later when 4K was taking off, and iMacs had moved to 5k, Apple hadn’t updated it and were still asking the same price...?

That, and never adding Thunderbolt to the classic Mac Pro - or (duh) adding a DisplayPort or HDMI input to the TB display - so MP users had to buy the n9n-TB version. Or perhaps the glossy-only display (it was never even updated with the new anti-glare coating from the iMac redesign). Or could it be the worse-than-a-$500 Dell non-adjustable stand (so you had to stand it on a book to use it as a second iMac display)?

Sure, it could be any or all of those things. But even if Apple made the perfect 27” monitor, what makes you think they could sell enough units to make a viable product?

You might think it would be a viable product, but Apple disagrees, don’t they? After all, it’s been three and a half years, and still, no new display. Do you think it’s possible that maybe the hundreds of people in the marketing department at Apple know something theluggage doesn’t?
[automerge]1577189494[/automerge]

Most people have no problem paying more than that but the question is whether the new feature like XDR worth 6 times the asking price and most or some people might only need HDR10+ instead of XDR.

You didn’t answer the question, but that’s fine.

Regarding your wish for a $1,000 27” 5K monitor, see above.

 

[69Mustang]

TrueTone is an optional choice. But Apple thinks automatically adjusting the white balance based on ambient lighting results in a better out of the box picture, not worse. You might disagree.

In the absence of the user selecting a desired reference mode, a TrueTone-adjusted display is the best color representation Apple can deliver. I assume that’s why Apple chooses that for the default.

If you wish to lobby Apple to change the default behavior, complaining here on the MR forums is unlikely to achieve that goal. You might want to use the feedback page, or you could write to Tim Cook and/or Phil Schiller.

I made a simple observation. I made no complaint. Couldn't care less if they change it. As I stated in the comment you quoted, I was pointing out the irony of True Tone juxtaposed to the marketing of color accurate professional. Not really sure how some are reading soooooooo much more into it than that.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I made a simple observation. I made no complaint. Couldn't care less if they change it. As I stated in the comment you quoted, I was pointing out the irony of True Tone juxtaposed to the marketing of color accurate professional. Not really sure how some are reading soooooooo much more into it than that.

There isn’t any irony though. Having TrueTone enabled for software devs, music producers, CAD engineers, data scientists, etc. who aren’t going to select one of the reference modes is in no way inconsistent with a color-accurate, reference monitor for video/film industry pros. It’s a dual-use product and not ironic in the least.

You took issue with Apple having enabled TrueTone as an out of the box default; if you don’t want to call it a complaint that’s fine. But you didn’t just “make a simple observation”. When you make provocative posts with phrases like “intentionally inaccurate” and post sarcastic snark like “makes complete sense to me”, you shouldn’t be surprised when people are provoked. Own it, walk it back, or do neither. But playing innocent and pretending your post was merely an innocuous statement of fact doesn’t pass the smell test.

 

[69Mustang]

There isn’t any irony though. Having TrueTone enabled for software devs, music producers, CAD engineers, data scientists, etc. who aren’t going to select one of the reference modes is in no way inconsistent with a color-accurate, reference monitor for video/film industry pros. It’s a dual-use product and not ironic in the least.

You took issue with Apple having enabled TrueTone as an out of the box default; if you don’t want to call it a complaint that’s fine. But you didn’t just “make a simple observation”. When you make provocative posts with phrases like “intentionally inaccurate” and post sarcastic snark like “makes complete sense to me”, you shouldn’t be surprised when people are provoked. Own it, walk it back, or do neither. But playing innocent and pretending your post was merely an innocuous statement of fact doesn’t pass the smell test.

There being no irony in that decision is your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Having True Tone as the default out of the box is ironic considering all the marketing related to the accuracy. My opinion. nothing more, nothing less. You can agree or disagree.

You thinking I took issue with something Apple did, doesn't make it so. I didn't take issue with it. I made fun of it. It was a quip, a hmmm observation, an ain't that strange musing. There is nothing remotely close to a complaint regarding the product in any of my comments in this thread. My only complaint has been leveled at the triggered nature of some people who misinterpreted what they read. I chose the words I chose because for most people they seemed to elicit the exact response I intended: ha that's true, it is odd. For the select few who are seeing ghosts - I can't help ya. There are plenty of examples in my post history where I have leveled a complaint about something. I don't equivocate. I've called things hot garbage, dumb as hell, absolutely stupid, and any number of other descriptive terms to convey my displeasure with something or someone. I can complain with the best of them. This ain't one of them times. No matter how much you think it is. Either way, you are more than welcome to the last word on this. It's reached overkill.

 

[Stevie jobz 2.0]

I had no choice but to headbutt a wall when he actually said... "the front of the unit is where you will find the display!!!! Wtf!!! Really? Thanks for clearing that up!!!

 

[WozniakDestroyTimCook]

Sure, it could be any or all of those things. But even if Apple made the perfect 27” monitor, what makes you think they could sell enough units to make a viable product?

You might think it would be a viable product, but Apple disagrees, don’t they? After all, it’s been three and a half years, and still, no new display. Do you think it’s possible that maybe the hundreds of people in the marketing department at Apple know something theluggage doesn’t?
[automerge]1577189494[/automerge]

Apple doesn't just make the perfect product but there are fewer flaws and stringent quality inspection. Unfortunately, Tim Cook didn't uphold those values for some of the product and why do you think will it become a viable product is beyond ridiculous and contradiction questions.

 

[1196403]

I have been waiting on Apple to release a display as the LG to me looks horrible. The XDR is great but it is out of my price range. Any suggestions on a smaller but perhaps half-as good monitor? I can’t drop $5000 on a monitor without a stand.

 

[Coyote2006]

I have been waiting on Apple to release a display as the LG to me looks horrible. The XDR is great but it is out of my price range. Any suggestions on a smaller but perhaps half-as good monitor? I can’t drop $5000 on a monitor without a stand.

Best 5K and 8K monitor of 2025

We tested the best 5K and 8K monitors for ultra-high resolutions and ultra-sharp picture quality

www.techradar.com

 

[theorist9]

You're still looking at $2500 for an under powered, not so configurable Mac Tower.

I'd like to offer a very different view on what customers would need to pay for a consumer-grade headless Mac tower, given Apple's current profit margins. I'll use the 27" iMac as a starting point:

A 27" iMac with a high-end 3.6 GHz/5GHz Turbo 8-core i9, 1 TB SSD, Radeo Pro 580X GPU (8GB GDDR5 RAM), and configured with 64 GB OWC DDR4 RAM, is $3300 based on full current retail pricing. A headless version of this should have a significantly lower manufacturing cost, since it omits the high-quality display panel. I don't know what the display panel adds to the retail price, but it's not unreasonable to think a headless version could retail for roughly $800 less, even after adding a few PCIe slots, and a somewhat beefier PS, to allow it to be highly configurable/upgradeable (including allowing for significantly more powerful GPUs which, because it's a tower, and because they're not going to make the trash-can "thermal-corner" mistake again, it would have the thermal capacity to handle). So, yes, about $2500, but for a unit that is both relatively (for a consumer unit) high-powered and highly configurable.

As to what Apple will do in the future, who knows. At this point, we have no indication that Apple is considering making either this product, or a "baby Mac Pro" (which would be a smaller, but still modular/upgradeable, version of the Mac Pro, with Xeon processors and ECC memory). Note that, currently, pretty much every other major mfr. that caters to the pro market (HP, Dell, Boxx, etc.) makes at least two different workstation form factors: a large one like Apple's Mac Pro, and a smaller/less expensive one, in recognition of the fact that the pro market is not monolithic -- different pros have very different needs. So perhaps, depending on the success of the Mac Pro, and their own market research, Apple may expand their pro lineup.